Dark matter in seven acts 

idk why, but all science related comment sections always have a good portion of aggressively religious types, schizophrenics, and really, very confused questions/arguments about the topic where theyre basically just mashing buzzwords together like a scifi movie. you should see the shit they spin up in PBS spacetimes comments.

@@eattoast6378 the psychos are psycho for science

I thought he was bouncing a ball. Just shooting the breeze.

"SLAMS" Hos keyboard

plot twist. he's writing the presentation in real time.

IQ's are just an illusion

@@guff9567 Were you talking to me? Who are you calling Loser?

My friend and me were discussing about the same thing a few days ago

Theoretically gravity only affects the motion of small objects like planets and moons. Theoretically, dark matter only affects the motion of star, galaxies and light. Because our solar system is made up of about 0.14% of mass smaller than our sun and our sun makes up the remaining 99.8% it indicates because they are unable to explain the motion of our sun that the theory of general relativity and the laws of motion are only 0.14% accurate at describing the motion of mass in our solar system. Not very accurate are they? Imagine if you were a news anchors that were only able to accurately predict 0.14% of the weather every year and then blamed their inaccuracy on dark clouds. Do you think people would still rely on them for their news? I don't rely on any scientist who tries to make me believe in dark matter and dark energy. They are like the guys who can't accurately predict the weather.

@@BigNewGames why are you contradicting your first and last statements tho xD

@@Shreyy17 I didn't. You simply misunderstood what I said.

thats not what this graphics show. It is the history, a time scheme of events. Therefore it doesn t show the future (what is the universe expanding into isn t answered here) and it certainly not indicates a place of origin or a map of the universe. Not all these things can be shown in one figure, maybe the supposed future of the universe can be added but it was not the question here.

@@thepuma2012 I think you missed the point of my comment. There's a graphic in the video that plays when they discuss the big bang and makes it appear as though the big bang is an explosion that arises from a singular point, which is an incorrect representation of how we understand the big bang.

@@Candesce no, i couldn t make that up from your comment indeed

thanks!

Orbits and contributes to the center of mass in the same manner as normal matter.

No. Dark matter is pinned on the motion of stars far from the center of a galaxy. The motion of the stars near the central supermassive black hole in a galaxy can easily be explained by general relativity and the laws of physics. It is the motion of the stars furthest away from the barycenter of mass in the galaxy that cannot be explained. So they pin this motion on missing mass. Not because they are able to detect dark matter but that's what they believe is causing the extra motion occurring to stars in galaxies. They assume gravity is the only force in the universe able to move stars and galaxies and they are wrong. Mass is not a strong force. Electromagnetism is much stronger than gravity. Even the weak nuclear force is stronger than gravity yet they still believe gravity is the only force causing the motion of mass in the universe. Hence why they blame it on missing mass.

@@stephendatgmail That's what I wanted to know. Does the Dark matter speed up as it clumps together? How does it shed energy as it gets closer together?

@@501Mobius I don’t think that it clumps or gets closer together generally, but I’m probably not the best person to go that deep. I’m sure at the very least there are some constraints on how clumpy it could be.

@@BigNewGames There does seem to be other evidence of DM as there are a small number of galaxies that appear to have had it stripped away and rotate more in accordance with GR.

Yes! Even people in the field joke about that. But the official term is recombination.

It would be the first time, so combine - i would say

That would be logical. However, recombination is kinda true also. During "recombination" the electrons would combine with the nuclei and then fly off, combine and fly off, many many times before settling down into a stable state.

@@nmarbletoe8210 good point, but essentially the start of the combination process

@@murraymadness4674 There's nothing wrong with asking questions. But a reasonable starting point is "What do the scientists know that I don't?"

​@@murraymadness4674 Another good question is what makes a person who builds car trailers think they know better than cosmologists? xD You can't even post a single comment without insulting someone, an 80 IQ move, kiddo.

Albert Einstein was a clerk in a pattern office when he did his most valuable thinking

​@@justadam1917 Einstein was talented and scored best in the class, but he skipped tons of lectures and had to use notes from one of his best colleagues Grossmann. Einstein could not bring himself to study things that didn't interest him. Since he was in conflict with some of the University personnel and had a disrespectful approach towards the lectures, nobody wanted to take him as an assistant position to continue the work in the university. He got the job because Grossmann's dad was able to get Einstein job in the patent office. It is a very interesting story, how the scientific career of one of the most influential person in science got halted because of the poor personal relations with the personnel. Despite it, Einstein managed to find time after work to write the 4 ground braking research papers on different topics in under one year! ;)

They're so smart then why don't they know what is causing the accelerated expansion of space or the fast orbital velocity of galaxies or why satellite galaxies and stars along the outskirts of the Milky Way traveling some 1.2 million mi/h have exceeded the escape velocity of the galaxy yet have not been flung out into deep space? If a dark matter halo surrounded the Milky Way the satellite galaxies would have been flung out into deep space a long time ago. A real expert would be able to predict the motion of all the mass in the universe, not just 0.14% of the mass in our solar system.

While some dark matter (a few percent) would fall into the event horizon of a black hole, they are mostly made up of normal matter which consists of particles that collide and slow down and form an accretion disk around the black hole or is funnelled into the area around the black hole. Since dark matter is thought not to interact (only gravitationally) it would not lose kinetic energy and most of it would fly past the black hole.

@@tonywells6990 Thanks Tony.

Interesting idea, maybe.

@@jimgraham6722 people don't want change in astrophysics because the same thing has been taught for decades meaning the Lambda-CDM model. Edwin Hubble, the mastermind of the expanding galaxies, never believed in the expanding universe theory. He, and many others, thought that it was too religious an assumption. What I am suggesting is a paradigm shift that nobody wants to have anything to do with. It is the exact same scrutiny that Galileo faced as he told the world the Earth was not the center of the universe. Now, people are mad at me because I tell them that the universe wasn't "born" 13.8 billion years ago. Somehow it has become absurd to disagree with it yet the same people that argue for it to their death strategically ignore every neverending question that the theory has been unable to solve. It's nothing but crickets.

yup

It is here! But it doesn't mean it's easy to study

Dark matter is thought to have a very tiny cross section, so it can't really collide with other dark matter and fall to the center of a gravity well. It may also annihilate with itself.

@@spartanatreyu _"so it can't really collide with other dark matter and fall to the center of a gravity well"_ - as long as it is attracted to other matter and other dark matter, it should not make a difference how large its cross section is. It should still fall to the center of the gravity well. Especially if it does not interact with other matter, that is, when it can go through normal atoms.

​@@renedekker9806 Cross section absolutely matters. Without collision, things can't settle. If you imagine a dark matter particle from outside the Solar System was on a "collision course" with the Sun it would drift into the system, accelerate as it gets closer to the Sun, pass right through the centre, come out the other side decelerating but with enough velocity to continue to head out of the Solar System never to be encountered again. Even if we imagine a dark matter particle inside the Solar System without enough velocity to escape, it will either orbit the sun, or pass through the sun over and over again like a frictionless pendulum. It will never settle inside the centre of the Sun.

@@spartanatreyu _"If you imagine a dark matter particle from outside the Solar System was on a "collision course" with the Sun"_ - the vast majority of Dark Matter is supposed to be around from the Big Bang, and, according to the video, was cold. So the image you need to think about is dark matter floating around in a cloud together with normal matter, and then collapsing inward due to gravity, creating the Sun. Not particles from outside after the Sun was already formed. _"it will either orbit the sun, or pass through the sun over and over again like a frictionless pendulum."_ - It will orbit the Sun inside the Sun.

​@@renedekker9806 *"and then collapsing inward due to gravity, creating the Sun"* Yes, dark matter particles would collapse towards the center of the Sun, and because the particles don't collide, they would shoot outside the sun on the other side. The reason regular matter doesn't shoot through the other side is because the effect of the particle's electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces have a large and strong enough cross sectional area of effect, that they can collide, turning their velocity into another form of energy (usually heat). Dark matter is not effected by either the electromagnetic or strong nuclear force, so it does not collide (interact) in any real sense with particles that are effected by those forces. For a dark matter particle to orbit within a star, it needs to be both: within a star and have such a small relative velocity to that star that it is below that star's escape velocity. *Edit*: If you're under the assumption that a dark matter particle would orbit a star even without collision, you'll want to check out collisionless n-body simulatons with a particle on a hyperbolic trajectory.

one way is gravitational lensing

Checkout Issac Arthur's vids on it!

Do you know how much energy is required to accelerate a single particle in a particle accelerator up to the speed of light? An infinite amount of energy. So how much energy is required to accelerate galaxies up to the speed of light? An infinite amount of energy, more than the universe contains inside all the mass in the universe. That's just one galaxy. But in every direction they look all galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So how much energy does it take to accelerate all the galaxies around us faster than the speed of light? It is beyond comprehension. Dark energy and dark matter are mistakes in their equations because their equations are wrong. They are missing variables and scientists have no idea what's missing so they blame all the motion on either dark matter of dark energy. They think they are so smart yet failed to predict the motion of our solar system as it orbits the center of the galaxy? Out of all the mass in out solar system they are only able to predict the motion of 0.14%. Scientific theories and laws come up short trying to explain the motion of mass. So, scientists invented dark matter and dark energy as wildcards to explain the motion they cannot account for. These variables can take on any value to make scientists look like they know what they're talking about when they have no clue. In reality dark matter and dark energy are pseudoscience. There is not dark matter or dark energy. There is simply a misunderstanding as to what causes large, old mass to move through space.

@@BigNewGames The galaxies were not accelerated beyond the speed of light, in fact the average speed of a galaxy is in the hundreds to thousands of km/s which is less than 1% of the speed of light. Space itself is expanding.

@@tonywells6990 Yes, the expansion of space is a slow acceleration between galaxies that I deduced many years ago. Have you figured out what is causing it yet? I did. I even got a single value, a single variable that explains both dark matter and dark energy.

@@BigNewGames You are completely wrong. Anyone can make up facts but you have to at least show your working out.

@@BigNewGames ah, one of those. humour me, what is this great thing you thought of and if its so great why was it not published?

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best in that the term "matter" isn't even accurate. It's really dark gravity.

@@louislesch3878 dark gravity that is concentrated around galaxies. gravity itself has no way to concentrate itself without matter. so dark matter is a pretty good name, even if it could be wrong

Ball is bound, BB not so.

yeah, it was fiery but it wasn't a ball... but it could have been a hyperball

@@nmarbletoe8210 not really fire. there was no oxidation. fire had not formed

There's not enough of it

@@nihlify why?

@@Hal_McKinney Because of their extremely low rest mass. For years, physicists wondered whether they were actually massless, but they were eventually measured to roughly one ten billionth the mass of a proton. No theory has shown how such a lightweight particle could account for 4/5 of the universe's matter.

@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT like you said, neutrinos are not massless, so given enough time, with bazillions streaming out of every star in the universe every bazillo-second, eventually there’s enough mass.

@@Hal_McKinney you are missing to comprehend the amount of dark matter. the magnitude of dark matter we see affecting gravity is way less than the gazellion neutrinos emitted from stars. The dark matter is estimated to be 4/5 portion of total matter.

nothing is less then zero 5 - 10 = 5 ^-5 {1+1} 2; 1,1,+; 11; 2 integers & 1 calculator; a math problem; a point of interest; ect Dark matter appears to hold ties to being the anti range respects of the density gravity polarity(no space under 0 so not solid to gas //p! its introverted solid to extraverted gas to introverted gas to extraverted solid) __& not simply a 'too far away persuasion for anything more then quadrant gravity slopes via reflection & dampening' the universe acts like a dampening field each new stack thicker gets less kinetic but in our Quadrant 001s Terran Systems Yellow Stars physics (&++>**surrounding hood) hot > cauterize > grease > widen > 0 < thin < slide < harden < cold so is dark matter the left over Gravitron dots(spread across the blackhole plain)? allowing them to get absorbed as the next reaction takes hold? #noblepeaceprice

At first I wasn't sure, but this is actually a pretty great joke. Thanks for the laugh

What?..... pffff

dark matter isnt a physical, singular sort of object you "believe" in. Its the name of a problem with our understanding of the relationship between gravity and mass. We KNOW something is wrong, and until someone comes along flips relativity on its head and says "THIS is how gravity really works", we just have to assume we're missing a massive particle.

@@eattoast6378 My guess is modified gravity will win over dark matter....a field, not a particle.

Spot on. I might well be wrong too, of course.

not missing mass. It only happens to stars and galaxies. So stars and galaxies must be propelling themselves slowly over time.

Possible, but it would have to be something unique to explain all the evidence.

@@tonywells6990 All the evidence of no dark matter?

@@lightdark00 No, I meant the evidence that supports the existence of dark matter.

Interesting. Would you be able to say a little more, please?

@@tim40gabby25 What aspect would you like more detail on?

@@Corvaire the reconstitution of 4-d waves, please.

It has to explain far more than that. How do you expect to progress in the area if you want them to stop trying to explain it now and wait for a "simpler answer in the future". Before Copernicus scientific method was not in use, and cosmology was more like a philosophy. Most of the particles in the standard model have been discovered in the second half of the last century.

But, we know it's not a perfect solution, and we know that either our model of gravity is wrong, or there must be something that behave like matter according to it. The thing is, people have tried to come up with models that recapitulate the dark matter related issues, but it always end up not fitting other observations. So at this moment, dark matter actually being a form of matter is the main theory, with everybody ready to welcome any solid alternative if and whenever it presents itself.

@@arnaudnicolas2782 The issue is this video is coming across as facts, not theory. It is a rather wild idea with essentially no real data to support it, except that our current gravity theory fails. How about you fix the gravity theory? There seems to me a lot of other possibilities other than invoking some magic material.

@@murraymadness4674 dark matter is a solution that fits the data because it's a solution built by looking at the shape of the hole on the data and designing a piece that fits in it. It's deductive reasoning. The reason it's called matter is that once you look at that supposed piece, it has all the properties of conventional matter, except that it doesn't interact with light in a way we can detect. The reason it's talked about as seriously as if it was 100% real is that 1)it fits the data so insanely well it's uncanny and 2) despite throwing all the brilliant minds we can at it, nobody so far has comes close to fitting the data the way the dark matter model does. But again physicists the world over will welcome any alternative model of the universe that account for the observation without using dark matter. But until then, the dark matter model fits so well, they'll keep using it to make predictions about the universe.

Cold fusion happens when you suspend hydrogen particles or protons in a vacuum using a weak magnetic field. When long wavelength light (visible) goes into the suspended protons they come out the other side as high energy radiation (X-rays, gamma rays) and heat. Use cold light having a long wavelength to make high energy light and heat.

@@BigNewGames cold fusion with palladium and deuterium , in beaker put heavy water and lithium salt and palladium as anode and lead as cathode if current pass ., palladium has cubic structure so palladium absorb more deuterium ,there palladium contracting because of current passing and deuterium+deuterium= helium +gamma ray

Because all our observations indicate it acts just like matter in the sense that it bends space time like matter does. IOW it causes gravitational effects just as matter particles do. It seems to have mass and therefore also momentum.

Not extra gravity. Extra propulsion. The extra motion that theory and law cannot explain only happens to stars and galaxies. So stars and galaxies must somehow propel themselves, a slow acceleration over time.

If it was a slow acceleration then it would be the same for stars and galaxies because it would be based on time. The solar system is 5 billion years old. It is traveling 500,000 mi/h. That's an acceleration of 1 mi/h every 10,000 years. The Milky Way galaxy contains much more mass than our solar system so their mass is not a common factor to their motion right? The Milky Way galaxy is 13.7 billion years old. It is traveling 1.37 million mi/h. That's an acceleration of 1 mi/h ever 10,000 years. Their mass is not the same but their acceleration rates are the same even though they don't contain the same mass. Mass is not the common factor in their motion! Time is the common factor in their motion.

@@BigNewGames what are you on about? You are not making any sense.

@@frojojo5717 whoosh, went right over your head.

Does not fit with observations

@@nihlify it all depends on how you look at what i said. We have no idea weather space is always the same or changing its properties over time. It is quite striking that there are Galaxies without any extra gravitational pull other than the gravitational pull from the observable matter. Also these galaxies are young, galaxies without a spiral structure. so taking that into consideration dark matter could be an illusion created by space that has been compressed and decompressed multiple times whic made its integrity more loose.

That's gravity! But i'll add, you can't explain observations like the bullet cluster, even if you modify gravity to match other observations

I think all matter is doing the affect of this and gravity is the side affect from the mater created

The DIELECTRIC VORTEX Technology by Ronald Frederick Sykes just G it

That's referred to as pseudoscience.